[deleted]

originally posted by Jay Miller:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I don't know what the original error was, but I vote that telling stories about the wine ignorance of people is right up there with instructors who laugh at the grammatical errors of their students as a manifestation of uncalled for snobbery. It's probably worse since there really is no social necessity for being knowledgeable about wine or any reason why that person who thinks that a NY wine is a Chablis because that's what she saw on the label needs to augment her knowledge. Remember that we are engaged in the enterprise of giving outsize importance to an agricultural product that is also an alcoholic beverage. We should be devoting effort not to feel ashamed of ourselves for such an absurd activity, not rebuking others for not sharing our self-indulgence.

I do, however, support capital punishment for those who misuse varietal.
Click to expand...

well, the original was a use of varietal which I thought was incorrect but was told I was wrong about. so I was incorrect and merely jumping on the anti-varietal misuse bandwagon. I'm so ashamed.
Click to expand...

So embarrassing for you and I.
 
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
Following Jonathan, as a former prof (but not of English) I offer a proposed guide to the use of the "V" word (that I learned from Doghead):

"Varietal" is an adjective, not a noun. A particular grape is a variety (if you must), not a varietal. A varietal wine is a wine made from a particular variety, e.g., a pinot noir. This is in contrast to a blend or a wine that uses more than one grape.

I frequently made this mistake before I knew better and was glad when I learned the distinction.
Click to expand...

That poor word, it's so... so damaged that you just feel pity and want to euthanize it. It's times like this that a dose of the old therapy-style CENSORship would come in handy.
 
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
Following Jonathan, as a former prof (but not of English) I offer a proposed guide to the use of the "V" word (that I learned from Doghead):

"Varietal" is an adjective, not a noun. A particular grape is a variety (if you must), not a varietal. A varietal wine is a wine made from a particular variety, e.g., a pinot noir. This is in contrast to a blend or a wine that uses more than one grape.

I frequently made this mistake before I knew better and was glad when I learned the distinction.
Click to expand...

I'm still a prof as far as I know, but I support this policy.
 
Should one go the way of descriptive or prescriptive linguistics? Most of my linguistic studies have been in esoteric fields of Semitic philology or historical and comparative linguistics so I probably can't say much worth noting about modern English philology. But from the historical part of my studies, I think prescriptive grammars are doomed to failure because language change is inevitable. Both structures of the language and the meanings of words change so why try to stop the change with prescriptive rules? Shouldn't the rules rather fit themselves into the language as it is used?

If I would go utterly by the descriptive route, I would think that "varietal" as a noun is so commonplace everywhere (except on this one forum) from the major wine fora to major publications and use by authorities in the field that resistance to this change is futile. Yet on the other hand I don't like this change because it can lead to confusion between adjective and noun - though context will usually clear that up. We are putting up a good fight on this forum, but fights against language change seem to be futile. I'll still use "varietal" as adjective, though.
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
Should one go the way of descriptive or prescriptive linguistics? Most of my linguistic studies have been in esoteric fields of Semitic philology or historical and comparative linguistics so I probably can't say much worth noting about modern English philology. But from the historical part of my studies, I think prescriptive grammars are doomed to failure because language change is inevitable. Both structures of the language and the meanings of words change so why try to stop the change with prescriptive rules? Shouldn't the rules rather fit themselves into the language as it is used?

If I would go utterly by the descriptive route, I would think that "varietal" as a noun is so commonplace everywhere (except on this one forum) from the major wine fora to major publications and use by authorities in the field that resistance to this change is futile. Yet on the other hand I don't like this change because it can lead to confusion between adjective and noun - though context will usually clear that up. We are putting up a good fight on this forum, but fights against language change seem to be futile. I'll still use "varietal" as adjective, though.
Click to expand...

The argument that usage determines language keeps coming up with regard to corrections regarding grammar and usage. I hereby reprint my all purpose reply:

This is Mark Squires's defense of "varietal." In the long view you are right that usage will determine meaning. It's because the OED records usage that it is such a wonderful instrument. But usage occurs because people make choices. One of the choices they make is to follow a neologism or decide it is a solecism and razz it. Making certain nouns into verbs that essentially relate to the nouns and save ancillary phrases (gifting instead of giving a gift) provides a stylistic alternative and is sensical. Changing a philosophical term into a synonym for pleasurable seems to be just to add a false feeling of flash, just as referring to "varietal" no doubt sounds fancier to people when in fact it destroys a meaningful distinction.

One can no more accede to usage than one can stop its progress. All one can do is participate in its development. And one way is to complain when the reason seems right, just as it seems right to you to complain against the misuse of "gourmand" even though that misuse is widely spread enough so that some people here at first didn't even know you were complaining about it.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
Should one go the way of descriptive or prescriptive linguistics? Most of my linguistic studies have been in esoteric fields of Semitic philology or historical and comparative linguistics so I probably can't say much worth noting about modern English philology. But from the historical part of my studies, I think prescriptive grammars are doomed to failure because language change is inevitable. Both structures of the language and the meanings of words change so why try to stop the change with prescriptive rules? Shouldn't the rules rather fit themselves into the language as it is used?

If I would go utterly by the descriptive route, I would think that "varietal" as a noun is so commonplace everywhere (except on this one forum) from the major wine fora to major publications and use by authorities in the field that resistance to this change is futile. Yet on the other hand I don't like this change because it can lead to confusion between adjective and noun - though context will usually clear that up. We are putting up a good fight on this forum, but fights against language change seem to be futile. I'll still use "varietal" as adjective, though.
Click to expand...

The argument that usage determines language keeps coming up with regard to corrections regarding grammar and usage. I hereby reprint my all purpose reply:

This is Mark Squires's defense of "varietal." In the long view you are right that usage will determine meaning. It's because the OED records usage that it is such a wonderful instrument. But usage occurs because people make choices. One of the choices they make is to follow a neologism or decide it is a solecism and razz it. Making certain nouns into verbs that essentially relate to the nouns and save ancillary phrases (gifting instead of giving a gift) provides a stylistic alternative and is sensical. Changing a philosophical term into a synonym for pleasurable seems to be just to add a false feeling of flash, just as referring to "varietal" no doubt sounds fancier to people when in fact it destroys a meaningful distinction.

One can no more accede to usage than one can stop its progress. All one can do is participate in its development. And one way is to complain when the reason seems right, just as it seems right to you to complain against the misuse of "gourmand" even though that misuse is widely spread enough so that some people here at first didn't even know you were complaining about it.
Click to expand...

You're my hero.
 
He made wine as well?

My main experience with Wagner is varietals like "Tristan und Isolde" and "Gtterdmmerung."

What have I been missing?

F
 
Otto,
As many a mother has said, just because all the other kids are jumping off the bridge doesn't mean that you have to as well.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
Otto,
As many a mother has said, just because all the other kids are jumping off the bridge doesn't mean that you have to as well.
Click to expand...

I thought the Squires Bored was closed until January 5.
 
I can't say much about the social aspects of linguistic issues, but I thought that most people wouldn't care how the words are used and will simply use it how others use it. So it is a passive choice to use varietal as both noun and adjective. But in case you didn't read the last sentence of my previous post, I think it is clear what choice I made. I'm not sure I understood Jonathan's complaint: we seem to have said pretty much the same thing. I didn't understand SfJoe's and Dan McQ's points either.
 
originally posted by Chris Coad:
FAIL.
Click to expand...

Okay Chris, that does it. I don't know what other part of the Internet you've been reading lately but I suspect it is in the kids section and has sass. Don't bring that stuff over here. It's not fair to the rest of us. It's a slippery slope from there to chiding women to show their breasts or GTFO.

For Brad Kane's sake please, let it end here.

Let it end, Chris. Let it end.

And Happy New Year.

Best,
Kay
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
I can't say much about the social aspects of linguistic issues, but I thought that most people wouldn't care how the words are used and will simply use it how others use it. So it is a passive choice to use varietal as both noun and adjective. But in case you didn't read the last sentence of my previous post, I think it is clear what choice I made. I'm not sure I understood Jonathan's complaint: we seem to have said pretty much the same thing. I didn't understand SfJoe's and Dan McQ's points either.
Click to expand...

Part of what I was saying is that what you call a "passive choice" is actually just a choice. Once again, you don't accede to usage or fight it, you just participate in it. One way to participate is to object to changes that you think enfeeble the language as opposed to changes that improve it. Another way is to accept whatever change others make. Either choice is participation in usage. One of them has better results, I think.
 
There have been usage battles that were decided by a single person repeating himself until the battle was over. I offer the example of a certain William Safire, who attempted to equate Watergate to all other scandals that followed believing that there was not much difference. He added the "gate" suffix time and again until it became part of accepted usage (see, for example, the 100,000 hits for "Plamegate" and almost 5000 hits for "Spitzergate"). So these battles can change the language.
 
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
Following Jonathan, as a former prof (but not of English) I offer a proposed guide to the use of the "V" word (that I learned from Doghead):

"Varietal" is an adjective, not a noun. A particular grape is a variety (if you must), not a varietal. A varietal wine is a wine made from a particular variety, e.g., a pinot noir. This is in contrast to a blend or a wine that uses more than one grape.

I frequently made this mistake before I knew better and was glad when I learned the distinction.
Click to expand...
This turned out to be the main thing I learned in 2008...
 
originally posted by Kay Bixler:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
FAIL.
Click to expand...

Okay Chris, that does it. I don't know what other part of the Internet you've been reading lately but I suspect it is in the kids section and has sass. Don't bring that stuff over here. It's not fair to the rest of us. It's a slippery slope from there to chiding women to show their breasts or GTFO.

For Brad Kane's sake please, let it end here.

Let it end, Chris. Let it end.

And Happy New Year.

Best,
Kay
Click to expand...

failboat3.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top